3 ms·

The subtitle is "Piecing together a celebrity scientist". A celebrity? I've seen him interviewed once on Charlie Rose. In May 2002 CNN put him on with Bill B

The subtitle is "Piecing together a celebrity scientist". A celebrity? I've seen him interviewed once on Charlie Rose. In May 2002 CNN put him on with Bill Bennett. In 1986 he debated Boston university president John Silber on local Boston TV. How is he a celebrity? He mentioned in a speech once how someone on NPR wanted to talk to him, and how the higher-ups at NPR canceled and then limited his appearance, as he was apparently banned. He also was prevented by the IDF from attending a talk at Birzeit university in the West bank, something he said hadn't happened (being refused admittance to a country he was to give a unievrsity talk to) since he tried to enter Czechoslovakia in 1968. Even The Nation has spiked positive reviews of his books. Someone with so little exposure on US airwaves over the decades is not a celebrity.

kbenson 10y ago
Perhaps this[1] is what you are looking for. 165 credits as himself on different programs. 155 in the last 20 years. Currently in no less than 8 documentary productions that are in stages from post-production to nearing release. For comparison, Neil deGrasse Tyson only has 83 credits as himself[2]. I think that makes a good case that he's a "celebrity" scientist, as I certainly consider Tyson one. Both are on the short list of active scientists that I would expect random people to have at least heard of, even if they aren't sure who they are or where they heard of them. 1: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ 2: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/
- pastProlog 10y ago
  >> Someone with so little exposure on US airwaves over the decades is not a celebrity. > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ 165 credits as himself on different programs. 155 in the last 20 years. Well this makes my point. Let me look at the earliest ten. Third from bottom is UK. Fourth from the bottom is a Canadian documentary. Sixth and seventh from the bottom are Canadian. Eighth from bottom is Australian. Ninth from bottom is the UK. Tenth from bottom is UK. Second and fifth from bottom appear to be musical programs, not sure of the country. Which leaves the earliest, Chomsky's 1969 discussion with William F. Buckley. So 1969 to 1996 that's one credit. If you look at the other credits, many of them are for non-American programs, or very independently made films (not on the US airwaves as I said). More recent documentaries like "Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?" are made by Europeans. Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc. much more than Chomsky has in the past decade. He is much more of a US celebrity.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Well this makes my point. Let me look at the earliest ten. That... seems like an odd choice, when the question is whether he's a celebrity now. He could have had no exposure until a few years ago and still be a celebrity, so I'm not sure why looking at his oldest media appearances is relevant. Maybe you would prefer google trends?[1] For a real treat, change it from US to world wide. Chomsky is a global name, NGD is more of a US phenomenon. NGD has eclipsed Chomsky in recent times, but event at half or more of the current exposure NGD has, I think that points towards a celebrity status. > Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc. much more than Chomsky has in the past decade. He is much more of a US celebrity. That doesn't actually prove that Chomsky isn't a celebrity though, as it's still possible for NGD to be more famous and for Chomsky to be a celebrity. Also, I think you have a fairly narrow view of what "celebrity" is, if it's mostly informed by television exposure. Sure, television is a quick way to celebrity, but there are other ways (and those used to be the only ways). Einstein was a celebrity. Stephen King is a celebrity. Being well known is the definition, not being an entertainment personality. 1: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0b78hw,%2Fm%2F06b26l https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm...
    - dmix 10y ago
      You don't need to defend yourself, you're earlier post including Imdb links were sufficient. Chomsky is a celebrity scientist. Pretty much everyone who knows anything about him knows that.

kbenson 10y ago

Perhaps this[1] is what you are looking for. 165 credits as himself on different programs. 155 in the last 20 years. Currently in no less than 8 documentary productions that are in stages from post-production to nearing release. For comparison, Neil deGrasse Tyson only has 83 credits as himself[2]. I think that makes a good case that he's a "celebrity" scientist, as I certainly consider Tyson one. Both are on the short list of active scientists that I would expect random people to have at least heard of, even if they aren't sure who they are or where they heard of them. 1: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ 2: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/

pastProlog 10y ago
>> Someone with so little exposure on US airwaves over the decades is not a celebrity. > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/ 165 credits as himself on different programs. 155 in the last 20 years. Well this makes my point. Let me look at the earliest ten. Third from bottom is UK. Fourth from the bottom is a Canadian documentary. Sixth and seventh from the bottom are Canadian. Eighth from bottom is Australian. Ninth from bottom is the UK. Tenth from bottom is UK. Second and fifth from bottom appear to be musical programs, not sure of the country. Which leaves the earliest, Chomsky's 1969 discussion with William F. Buckley. So 1969 to 1996 that's one credit. If you look at the other credits, many of them are for non-American programs, or very independently made films (not on the US airwaves as I said). More recent documentaries like "Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?" are made by Europeans. Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc. much more than Chomsky has in the past decade. He is much more of a US celebrity.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Well this makes my point. Let me look at the earliest ten. That... seems like an odd choice, when the question is whether he's a celebrity now. He could have had no exposure until a few years ago and still be a celebrity, so I'm not sure why looking at his oldest media appearances is relevant. Maybe you would prefer google trends?[1] For a real treat, change it from US to world wide. Chomsky is a global name, NGD is more of a US phenomenon. NGD has eclipsed Chomsky in recent times, but event at half or more of the current exposure NGD has, I think that points towards a celebrity status. > Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc. much more than Chomsky has in the past decade. He is much more of a US celebrity. That doesn't actually prove that Chomsky isn't a celebrity though, as it's still possible for NGD to be more famous and for Chomsky to be a celebrity. Also, I think you have a fairly narrow view of what "celebrity" is, if it's mostly informed by television exposure. Sure, television is a quick way to celebrity, but there are other ways (and those used to be the only ways). Einstein was a celebrity. Stephen King is a celebrity. Being well known is the definition, not being an entertainment personality. 1: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0b78hw,%2Fm%2F06b26l https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm...
  - dmix 10y ago
    You don't need to defend yourself, you're earlier post including Imdb links were sufficient. Chomsky is a celebrity scientist. Pretty much everyone who knows anything about him knows that.